Case Law Details
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Muljimal Gandhi ( Delhi HC)- that interest at the rate of 6% per annum under Rule 8 could have been awarded to the respondent on the seized Indian currency only. The learned Single Judge has however applying the said Rule also awarded interest on the seized foreign currency and which cannot be sustained. The Division Bench of this Court in Neeraj Kumar (supra) has held that a writ remedy cannot be availed to circumvent the non grant of interest by the authority, Commissioner, Central Excise in that case. It was also observed that in any event a writ petition for award of interest simplicitor was not maintainable in view of the availability of alternate remedy by way of appeal or by way of a suit. . Else the position is squarely covered by Suganmal and M/s Orient Enterprise (supra) and this writ petition in the nature of enforcement of a civil liability that is claim for interest in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention of money is not maintainable. It is not as if payment of interest under Rule 8 (ii) was mandatory (as under Rule 8(i)) and which could be enforced by way of a writ petition. The impugned judgment awarding interest under Rule 8(i) qua Indian currency also can thus not be sustained.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of decision: 1st FEBRUARY, 2012
+ LPA 669/2011
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
LlPA 669 was filed without serving me the copy. This fact was brought to the knowledge of the Court but it was ignored and the court directed no need to issue notice as the sole respondent has appeared. The appeared in the Court to see what was complaint. It does not mean that I have received the copy of the Application filed by the appellant. On what basis the reply was filed by my Lawyer? He had no document to rely on.
W.P.(C) 4542/2010 was filed for interest and compensation claiming Rs. 52 lacs’ But the single Judge awarded interest only as per fema act.Not any compensation was awarded as per Judgement of single Judge. But the DB has misinterpreted between interst and compensation and stayed the order of Single Judge.The ED had illegally seized the currencies amounting to Rs. 19 lacs and after long legal battle the Tribunal released indian rupees only as I had not voilated any fema .Act. If such big amount was illegally seized and returned after so many years, am I not entitled to claim the interesr from the erring ED?